Ok, I am going to explain this very simply for you. But do understand, I am doing you a huge favour here, I am explaining in very simple terms, why it is that you have wasted all your effort in these matters so far, and why you need to really go back to the beginning and dump most of what you have written thus far (compare yourself to Wittgenstein if you like and try to do that second, improved version of VA).Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:56 am You have to make your point clearer.
How can I missed it if your point is "what is 1 + 1 = ?"
Your unclear question [only you know yourself] is also wasting my time and effort.
So it is mutually beneficial if you make your point clearer.
This really is ultra simple, all you need to do is look at what shape your general arguments have taken over the last couple of years, and what are the problems you were trying to overcome with each individual fix.
- You tried to get round the is/ought and fact/value problems by making the values and therefore fact claims about them, internal to the FSK.
- When challenged you (as above) usually try to universalise that by suggesting that all the apparently empirical bits of science are internal to that FSK.
- Then you end up having to avoid discussing what you have done to the notion of an empirical/rational divide, but I assume Skepdick will argue there is no such divide and you will probably agree. (Will you ever notice that Skepdick is effectively a Logical Positivist by the way?)
- But the ultimate point of all these moves you make is to get around some immediate short term problem. Some guy says you can't get values from facts, you don't waste much time thinking why that is a thing, you just do your usual move and you make everything part of an FSK and call it a win.
Ultimately, if I have my mere belief that it is morally wrong to drown kittens. And if you have your knowledge that it is actually in line with the great truths of morality-proper as justified [logically AND philosophically AND scientifically AND whatever else] to drown unwanted kittens that don't belong to somebody else, then there's something you want your knowledge to do that my belief cannot.
Your ultimate problem is that to convert your own beliefs into knowledge, you gave that all away. Your knowledge doesn't do anything that a belief doesn't do equally well. You created a distinction but you forgot to create the difference.
Before you get indignant and hit reply to tell me how ignorant I am and what a bastard logical positivist I must be just because I don't agree with you... It's time for you to take that inventory I've hinted at here. There's a reason why circular arguments do matter, and trying to get out of it by suggesting science is equally circular is not the answer if you are trying to do something other than just win a trivial argument on a tiny little web site where the other guy will just lose interest if you argue long enough anyway. If you want what you are writing to matter in any sense at all, you definitely need to fix the problems rather than calling people retards for telling you about them.